Patrick LaCross et al v. Knight Transportation Incorporated et al

Filing 230

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification #195 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' submission of 50 declarations of putative class members in support of Plaintiffs' Reply #229 . Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 1/11/2022. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Patrick LaCross, et al.,

10

Plaintiffs,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00990-PHX-JJT

Knight Transportation Incorporated, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

At issue is Plaintiffs Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira, and Matthew Lofton’s Motion

16

for Class Certification (Doc. 195, PMCC), to which Defendants Knight Transportation,

17

Inc. et al., (“Knight”) filed a Response (Doc. 210, Resp.) and Plaintiffs filed a Reply

18

(Doc. 221, Reply). In this Order, the Court will also resolve Defendants’ Objections to

19

Plaintiffs’ submission of 50 declarations of putative class members in support of Plaintiffs’

20

Reply (Doc. 229). For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for

21

Class Certification.

22

I.

BACKGROUND

23

Knight is a commercial motor carrier based in Phoenix, Arizona that delivers freight

24

throughout the continental United States. Plaintiffs Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira, and

25

Matthew Lofton are former owner-operator truck drivers for Knight. Plaintiffs and putative

26

class members, all of whom drove owner-operator trucks for Knight, contend Knight

27

misclassified them as independent contractors in violation of California’s labor and

28

employment laws. (PMCC at 1.)

1

The relationship between Knight and the owner-operator drivers (the “Drivers”) is

2

governed primarily by two contracts: (1) the Tractor Lease Agreement (“TLA”), and (2)

3

the Independent Contractor Operating Agreement (“ICOA”). According to Plaintiffs,

4

“Knight classifies its Drivers as ‘independent contractors’ in the ICOAs for purposes of

5

Arizona’s worker’s compensation … but maintains extensive control over them through

6

the terms of that same agreement and in practice, such that [the Driver’s] independent

7

contractor status can be attacked through facts uniform to all [Drivers].”

8

On February 6, 2015, another law firm filed a lawsuit against Knight, alleging

9

substantially similar violations as those contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. (the

10

“Flores Action”). (PMCC at 10.) The parties to that lawsuit reached a preliminary

11

settlement on or around December 18, 2017. Plaintiffs and the putative class members in

12

the current action believed the settlement terms were not in their best interest and opted out

13

of the settlement. (PMCC at 10.) Now, Plaintiffs and the putative class members seek to

14

certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class of truck drivers who: “(1) signed materially identical contracts

15

with Knight during the relevant time period, (2) were subject to uniform policies, rules and

16

regulations, (3) were hired to perform the same job duties; (4) were all allegedly uniformly

17

misclassified as independent contractors, and (5) all of whom opted out of a prior

18

settlement in Flores v. Knight Transportation Inc., et al., Case No. CV-15-01817-PHX-

19

SRB (“Flores”).” (PMCC at 2.) The proposed class includes 183 drivers, all of whom are

20

individually represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

21

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) provides that a class action—that is, an action

23

in which one or more members of a class sue on behalf of all members of the class—may

24

proceed only if four prerequisites are met:

25

(1)

impracticable;”

26
27

Numerosity: “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

(2)

Commonality: “there are questions of law or fact common to the class;”

28
-2-

1

(3)

the claims or defenses of the class;” and

2
3

(4)

6
7
8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
In addition, under Rule 23(b), a court may only certify a class action if there is at
least one of the following:
(1)

Risk of Inconsistency: the prosecution of separate actions by individual class
members would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications or adjudications

9

that would be dispositive of non-party class member interests; or

10
11

Adequacy of Representation: “the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.”

4
5

Typicality: “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of

(2)

Appropriate Class-Wide Injunctive Relief: injunctive or declaratory relief is

12

appropriate respecting the class as a whole because the conduct of the

13

opposing party applies generally to the class; or

14

(3)

Predominance and Superiority: “the court finds that the questions of law or

15

fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting

16

only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available

17

methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”

18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).

19

“Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. A party seeking class

20

certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with the Rule—that is, he must

21

be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions

22

of law or fact, etc.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Thus,

23

“‘sometimes it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming

24

to rest on the certification question.’” Id. (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457

25

U.S. 147, 160 (1982)). Class certification “is proper only if ‘the trial court is satisfied, after

26

a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied,’” which will

27

frequently “entail some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying claim.” Id. at

28

350–51 (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. at 161).
-3-

1
2
3

III.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs urge the proposed class meets all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule

23(b)(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). The Court will consider each element.

4

A.

Rule 23(a)(1) - Numerosity

5

Known as the numerosity requirement, Rule 23(a)(1) provides that a class action

6

may be maintained only if “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

7

impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). “In determining whether numerosity is satisfied,

8

the Court may consider reasonable inferences drawn from the facts before it.” In re Yahoo

9

Mail Litig., 308 F.R.D. 577, 589–90 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Impracticality has been interpreted

10

to mean that joinder of all the claims would be difficult and inconvenient. See In re

11

Modafinil Antitrust Litig., 837 F.3d 238, 249 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Robidoux v. Celani,

12

987 F.2d 931, 935 (2d Cir. 1993)). Although there is no precise number required to meet

13

this prerequisite, a proposed class of 40 or more members tends to indicate that joinder is

14

impracticable. Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In general,

15

courts find the numerosity requirement satisfied when a class includes at least 40

16

members.”); Huynh v. Harasz, 2015 WL 7015567, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“As other

17

district courts have noted, ‘the numerosity requirement is usually satisfied where the class

18

comprises 40 or more members.’”) (quoting Twegbe v. Pharma Integrative Pharmacy, Inc.,

19

2013 WL 3802807, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2013)). In the present case, Plaintiffs propose a

20

putative class consisting of the 183 drivers who opted out of the Flores settlement. (PMCC

21

at 11.) Joining 183 drivers would be impracticable. Accordingly, numerosity is satisfied.

22

B.

Rule 23(a)(2) - Commonality

23

Under Rule 23(a)(2), a class action must present “questions of law or fact common

24

to the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Courts have interpreted this section to require a

25

minimum of only one common question of law or fact shared by the class. Dukes, 564 U.S.

26

at 359 (“for purposes of Rule 23(a)(2), even a single common question will do.”)(alteration

27

and quotation marks omitted); Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d 581, 589 (9th Cir.

28

2012) (“[C]ommonality only requires a single significant question of law or fact.”)
-4-

1

Satisfying Rule 23(a)(2) is a “‘relatively light burden’ that ‘does not require that all the

2

questions of law and fact raised by the dispute be common… or that the common questions

3

of law or fact predominate over individual issues.’” Esparza v. SmartPay Leasing, Inc.,

4

No. 2019 WL 2372447, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564

5

F.3d 1256, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009)).

6

Plaintiffs allege there are numerous common questions of law and fact that satisfy

7

the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2), “including inter alia; (1) the enforceability of the forum-

8

selection, venue-selection, choice-of-law[,] and arbitration provisions in the TLAs and

9

ICOAs; (2) whether California or Arizona substantive law applies to the pending claims;

10

(3) whether the terms of the TLAs and/or the ICOAs render the Drivers employees as a

11

matter of law, and if not, then as a common question of law and fact to be decided at trial;

12

(4) whether Knight’s standard policies, practices and procedures violated applicable labor

13

and employment laws; (5) the nature of the remedies available to the Drivers; and (6) the

14

viability of Knight’s fifty (50) affirmative defenses.” (PMCC at 12.)

15

One of the central issues in this matter is whether the Drivers are independent

16

contractors or employees of Knight. (PMCC at 9.) Courts often certify classes to address

17

employee misclassification claims especially in the trucking context. Villalpando v. Exel

18

Direct Inc., 303 F.R.D. 588, 606 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (“the Court finds that the question of

19

whether Plaintiffs are independent contractors or employees of [defendant] is susceptible

20

to classwide treatment because of [defendant’s] uniform policies and practices as to its

21

drivers.”); Norris–Wilson v. Delta–T Group, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 596, 604 (S.D. Cal. 2010)

22

(holding that question of whether workers who were hired by the defendant and classified

23

as independent contractors under the same agreement were independent contractors or

24

employees was sufficient to meet commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2)). Here,

25

each Driver is governed by Knight’s TLA and ICOA contracts. Similar to the drivers in

26

Villalpando, the contracts place uniform policies and practices on the putative class

27

members satisfying the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a)(2).

28
-5-

1

C.

Rule 23(a)(3) - Typicality

2

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the “claims or defenses of the representative parties are

3

typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Typicality examines

4

whether other class members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based

5

on conduct that is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members

6

have been injured by the same conduct. Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617

7

F.3d 1168, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010). Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657, 685 (9th Cir. 2014). The

8

named plaintiffs’ claims and the rest of the class claims need not be identical to satisfy the

9

typicality requirement. Parsons, 754 F.3d at 685. Also, if the claims arise from a similar

10

course of conduct and share the same legal theory, certain factual differences or differing

11

damages may not necessarily defeat typicality. Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 847 F.3d 1108,

12

1116-18 (9th Cir. 2017).

13

Plaintiffs urge they and putative class members all “(1) signed materially similar

14

contracts with Knight and Knight Sales during the relevant time period, (2) were subject to

15

the same policies, rules[,] and regulations, (3) were hired to perform the same job duties;

16

(4) were all allegedly uniformly misclassified as independent contractors, and (5) all opted

17

out of the Flores settlement.” (PMCC at 13.) Moreover, all allegedly “suffered from the

18

same injuries (substantial unreimbursed costs, unpaid wages, and statutory damages for

19

various other alleged violations of California’s Labor Code and wage orders).” (PMCC at

20

13). The Court agrees Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class. Additionally,

21

Defendants do not challenge Plaintiffs’ argument regarding typicality. Accordingly, Rule

22

23(a)(3) is satisfied.

23

D.

Rule 23(a)(4) - Adequacy

24

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the “representative parties will fairly and adequately

25

protect the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). “The adequacy inquiry under

26

Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class

27

they seek to represent.” Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997). “[A]

28

class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the
-6-

1

same injury’ as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez,

2

431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418

3

U.S. 208, 216 (1974)). To determine if the named plaintiffs adequately represent the class,

4

courts ask: “(1) Do the representative plaintiffs and their counsel have any conflicts of

5

interest with other class members, and (2) will the representative plaintiffs and their

6

counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Evon v. L. Offs. of Sidney

7

Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1031 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendants do not contest that the named

8

Plaintiffs do not have a conflict of interest or that counsel for Plaintiffs are not competent

9

to represent the class. Failure to respond to a motion may be deemed consent to the Court’s

10

granting of that motion. LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiffs have therefore shown adequacy of

11

representation under Rules 23(a)(4).
Rule 23(b)(3) – Money Damages

12

E.

13

With the requirements of Rule 23(a) satisfied, the Court now turns to Rule 23(b).

14

Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). (PMCC at 1.) Rule 23(b)(3)

15

provides for class treatment (1) when questions of law or fact common to class members

16

predominate over questions affecting individual members, the predominance requirement,

17

and (2) when a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

18

adjudication of the controversy, the superiority requirement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

19

1.

Predominance

20

The predominance requirement is more demanding than Rule 23(a)(2)’s

21

commonality requirement. Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34 (2013) (“If

22

anything, Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance criterion is even more demanding than Rule

23

23(a)”). The predominance inquiry “focuses on the relationship between the common and

24

individual issues and tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant

25

adjudication by representation.” Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935,

26

944 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). “[C]ourts have a duty to take a close look at

27

whether common questions predominate over individual ones to ensure that individual

28

questions do not overwhelm questions common to the class.” Senne v. Kansas City Royals
-7-

1

Baseball Corp., 934 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotations omitted). “In contrast to

2

Rule 23(a)(2), Rule 23(b)(3) focuses on the relationship between the common and

3

individual issues. When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they

4

can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is clear

5

justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis.”

6

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted).

7

The resolution of the Drivers’ classification, as employees or independent

8

contractors, is at the center of the litigation. Both parties agree California and Arizona law

9

conflict on the test applicable to determining whether a worker is an employee or

10

independent contractor. (Resp. at 4.) Plaintiffs argue California substantive law applies to

11

all drivers and that, under California law, the Drivers should be considered employees.

12

(PMCC at 15-19.) Defendants assert there is “no common evidence that could demonstrate

13

either California or Arizona law applies to the entire putative class.” (Resp. at 4.)

14

Accordingly, Defendants urge class certification is inappropriate. Plaintiffs counter

15

Defendants’ claim that there is no common evidence by submitting 50 declarations from

16

putative class members showing, among other things, that “(i) 100% leased their trucks

17

from Defendants; (ii) 100% lived in California, (iii) only one driver had [an] Arizona CDL

18

(98%), and (iv) 43 out of 50 drivers (86%) said they spent more than 50% of their drive

19

time in California.” 1 (Reply at 2.)

20

“Concerns over which state’s laws apply to a proposed class do not necessarily

21

preclude a 23(b)(3) action. But understanding which law will apply before making a

22

predominance determination is important when there are variations in applicable state law

23

and potentially varying state laws may defeat predominance in certain circumstances”

24

Senne 934 F.3d at 928 (internal citations omitted). “A federal court sitting in diversity must

25
26
27
28

Defendants’ object to these Declarations in Doc. 229 arguing the 50 declarations
are improper because they raise new evidence for the first time in the Reply. (Doc. 229 at
2.) Defendants do not adequately explain how the 50 declarations prejudice the Defendants.
In any event, to the extent the Court relies upon the declarations, Defendants are not
prejudiced.
1

-8-

1

look to the forum state’s choice of law rules to determine the controlling substantive law.”

2

Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001). “Arizona courts

3

apply the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws ... to determine the controlling law for

4

multistate torts.” Bobbitt v. Milberg LLP, 801 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2015). Defendants

5

admit each putative class member signed Defendants’ ICOAs and are thus governed by the

6

same choice of law provisions. (Resp. at 5.) Accordingly, for any causes of action that fall

7

within the choice of law provisions, predominance would not be defeated since any choice

8

of law analysis would be common to all Plaintiffs.

9

Further, separate from the choice of law provisions, a common nucleus of facts and

10

potential legal remedies dominates this litigation. For example, provisions in the ICOAs

11

and TLAs required owner-operators to install a Qualcomm system in their tractor

12

(necessary for keeping required federal hours of service logs) from Knight and maintain

13

Statutory Work Accident insurance from Knight.2 (Resp. at 16-17.) Plaintiffs allege

14

Defendants used these provisions to assert significant control over drivers, thus impacting

15

their status as independent contractors.3 (Reply at 14.) Facts such as these would be relevant

16

under either Arizona or California law when determining drivers’ status as employees or

17

independent contractors. In Arizona, “[t]he right to control or supervise the method of

18

reaching a specific result determines whether an individual is an employee or an

19
2

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants, in their Response, argue the Qualcomm system and insurance
requirement should not be considered in determining putative class member classification
because “‘any supervision or control exercised by an employing unit to comply with any
statute, rule or code adopted by’ the federal government or state of Arizona ‘may not be
considered for the purposes of determining the independent contractor or employment
status of any relationship or individual[.]’” (Resp. at 17 (quoting A.R.S. § 23-1602)). As
Plaintiffs note in their Reply, the Arizona legislature enacted A.R.S. §23-1601, et seq. on
August 6, 2016. The statute makes no mention of retroactive application. This case was
filed prior to 2016 so A.R.S. § 23-1602 does not apply. Further, Plaintiffs do not cite these
facts because Defendants required owner-operators to purchase a Qualcomm or insurance
but instead allege Defendants required the owner-operators to exclusively purchase these
items from Knight rather than the open market.
Plaintiffs allege Defendants required drivers to “lease a Qualcomm through
Knight, pay Knight for use of that Qualcomm, and because the unit and service were
provided by Knight, Knight used the Qualcomm to track [Drivers’] locations” (Reply at
14.) Additionally, Plaintiffs claim, Defendants required Drivers to “purchase insurance
approved by Knight through Knight.” (Reply at 14.)
3

-9-

1

independent contractor.” Home Ins. Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, P.2d 801, 803 (1979).

2

Arizona courts “look to the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case, examining

3

various indicia of control.” Id. In California, there are two competing tests for determining

4

independent contractor status: (1) the “ABC Test,” as articulated in Dynamex Operations

5

West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and (2) the multi-factor

6

test set forth in S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341

7

(1989). Facts showing Defendants’ control over Plaintiffs’ equipment and work would also

8

be relevant for either California test. Accordingly, the differences between Arizona and

9

California law are not sufficiently substantive to predominate over the shared claims.

10

Jabbari v. Farmer, 965 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A conclusion as to which state’s

11

law applied was not necessary to the predominance determination … because the law of

12

each state at issue shared common questions that were central to the resolution of the claims

13

and capable of resolution in one fell swoop.”); Hanlon 150 F.3d at 1022 (variations in

14

products liability, breaches of express and implied warranties, and ‘lemon laws’ across the

15

states did not defeat predominance because there were still sufficient common issues to

16

warrant a class action).
2.

17

Superiority

18

In determining superiority, courts must consider the four factors of Rule 23(b)(3).

19

“A consideration of these factors requires the court to focus on the efficiency and economy

20

elements of the class action so that cases allowed under subdivision (b)(3) are those that

21

can be adjudicated most profitably on a representative basis.” 7A Charles Alan Wright,

22

Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1780 at 562

23

(2d ed.1986).

24

The first factor is the interest of each member in “individually controlling the

25

prosecution or defense of separate actions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A). Here Plaintiffs

26

and the putative class chose to opt out of the Flores settlement and remain in this proposed

27

class. Therefore, it is clear they do not wish to individually control the prosecution of

28

separate actions.
- 10 -

1

The second factor is “the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the

2

controversy already commenced by or against members of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

23(b)(3)(B). This factor is intended to serve the purpose of assuring judicial economy and

4

reducing the possibility of multiple lawsuits. At present, the Court is not aware of any other

5

litigation concerning this matter.

6

The third factor is “the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation

7

of the claims in the particular forum.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(C). This case involves

8

California drivers and an Arizona corporation, so the Court finds the District of Arizona a

9

desirable forum for adjudicating the claims. Further, this case has already been litigated by

10

the parties for the past seven years resulting in this case being transferred between state

11

and federal court and California and Arizona venues. The extensive litigation provided

12

both parties ample opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the current forum.

13

The fourth factor is “the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of

14

a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D). In the present case, liability issues all revolve

15

around the putative class members’ classification as independent contractors or employees.

16

As a result, Plaintiffs contend their case rises or falls across the class as a whole and

17

individual inquiries “will be minimal (if at all).” (PMCC at 23.) This Court agrees.

18

Accordingly, it is unlikely there will be many difficulties in managing the class action. For

19

the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs have satisfied the superiority requirement.

20

IV.

CONCLUSION

21

Plaintiffs seek class certification via Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). See Fed. R. Civ.

22

P. 23. The Court finds each element of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) has been satisfied and

23

the class should be certified.

24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

25

(Doc. 195).

26

....

27

....

28
- 11 -

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED overruling Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’

2

submission of 50 declarations of putative class members in support of Plaintiffs’ Reply

3

(Doc. 229).

4

Dated this 11th day of January, 2022.

5
6

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -